If it wasn't obvious, I only considered lenses that can be bought new, that all had AF and where available I only considered the versions of lenses with AF-S and VR/OS. There are enough people who only buy new and once you allow for used lenses, you are really opening a can of worms because there is such a vast array of options with difficult to obtain prices and such big differences in quality and features. And we all know that old WA often do poorly on digital, so instead of getting into an unsolvable argument over which lens is better (or equivalent), just drawing a simple line and restricting oneself to only what is available as new is the cleanest way to deal with this issue.

However, when you're merely talking about getting to a certain focal length and throw equivalent image quality out the window, one of FX's biggest advantages is having a huge selection of used lenses from the film area. Most of those lenses give very good image quality when used on full frame (which is what they're designed for).

Most 'old' tele lenses do similarly good on DX as on FX (and are by definition cheaper on DX because a shorter focal lengths are generally cheaper).

"Old WA often do poorly on digital"...well, maybe an old $100 UWA won't give the corner performance of a new $700 DX UWA, but being cheaper is the point. If you want awesome FX UWA performance, that can be had for $300 with a Samyang 14/2.8. No AF, but you don't need AF because pretty much everything will be in focus anyways.

Getting a 14 mm as your first UWA is not the most practical solution, most people will make more use of something not quite as extreme. And I doubt that those having spend good money on a FX camera will really go for a $100 WA and get worse IQ than they got from their DX system. Very few people switch to systems that produce worse IQ than their current ones (except when getting something noticeably smaller). In my opinion, most people that switch to FX do so to get better IQ not to get cheaper lenses, and generally if you want increase your quality level you will be willing to pay more and thus in reality do spend more.

And if you want to take IQ into consideration, you have to take the superior noise performance of FX sensors into account. The D600 is more than a stop ahead, so when you're not in bright sunlight, it's like having a lens that's a stop faster.

You cannot have your cake and eat it. You either get the same light gathering (eg, f/2.8 on DX vs. f/4 on FX) and possibly save money doing so, or you get better light gathering (lower noise) by replacing a f/2.8 DX lens with a f/2.8 FX lens but then you you pay more.

i. you ignore the existence of slow FF lenses and they they exist in vast quantity

I'll only repeat my original statement, I think it is clear enough and stands for itself.

And that is the point, to cover any set of focal lengths, you will have almost universally pay more for a FX set than a DX set.

And it is dead wrong. to cover 24-120 it is certainly much cheaper to buy FF lenses than APS-C.

APS-C only outperforms FF in a very specific circumstances:

pixel density is higher on the APS-C and

the subject does not fill the DX crop of the FF camera and

you are reach limited by the lens

This is what I would call "peculiar boundary conditions".

To cover any set of focal lengths, you will have to almost universally pay more for a FX set than a DX set.

After all that had been discussed you still insist on comparing much slower DX lens against much faster FX lens. that is just non-sensical

I am comparing the cheapest way to cover a set of focal lengths on DX vs. FX. That is my original statement in my original posts which you called a myth. You can declare that question irrelevant (because few people would aspire to do that) but you didn't, you called it a myth.

I think you do not correctly differentiate between the words 'non-sensical' and 'irrelevant'.

However, when you're merely talking about getting to a certain focal length and throw equivalent image quality out the window, one of FX's biggest advantages is having a huge selection of used lenses from the film area. Most of those lenses give very good image quality when used on full frame (which is what they're designed for).

Most 'old' tele lenses do similarly good on DX as on FX (and are by definition cheaper on DX because a shorter focal lengths are generally cheaper).

We're not just talking about telephotos here. Moreover, I don't think your statement that most tele lenses are just as good on DX as FX. DX can be thought of as a 1.5x teleconverter - it places a lot more demand on central resolution. Old teles designed during the film era probably weren't built with that in mind...unless you talk about really expensive high end models where no expense is spared to deliver the best sharpness/aberration control possible and therefore happen to be still be adequate with DX today.

But with wide angles and standard zooms, old lenses provide far cheaper options when trying to cover a set of focal lengths.

Getting a 14 mm as your first UWA is not the most practical solution, most people will make more use of something not quite as extreme.

Ok, perhaps, but that's still an example of FX blowing away DX IQ for a lower price.

And I doubt that those having spend good money on a FX camera will really go for a $100 WA and get worse IQ than they got from their DX system.

It's not worse IQ. It's better IQ. I'll bet that my $100 Tamron 19-35/3.5-4.5 beats the $500 Sigma 10-20/4-5.6, especially when sharpness is concerned. The Tamron is impressively sharp stopped down. The only weakness is the extreme corners at 19mm. I tried using the Sigma 10-20 on a friend's camera (18 MP APS-C), and even at f/8 I wasn't impressed by the Sigma's sharpness. Oh, and the 10-20 had a terrible right side...it was probably decentered.

Very few people switch to systems that produce worse IQ than their current ones (except when getting something noticeably smaller). In my opinion, most people that switch to FX do so to get better IQ not to get cheaper lenses, and generally if you want increase your quality level you will be willing to pay more and thus in reality do spend more.

Again, you're not losing any IQ. You're keeping either the same or getting better IQ...and getting better low light performance.

And if you want to take IQ into consideration, you have to take the superior noise performance of FX sensors into account. The D600 is more than a stop ahead, so when you're not in bright sunlight, it's like having a lens that's a stop faster.

You cannot have your cake and eat it. You either get the same light gathering (eg, f/2.8 on DX vs. f/4 on FX) and possibly save money doing so, or you get better light gathering (lower noise) by replacing a f/2.8 DX lens with a f/2.8 FX lens but then you you pay more.

Yes, so with FX you can save some money and get only a slight IQ increase (easier to give better performance wide open with a f/4 lens than a f/2.8 lens, and FX sensors are actually more than a stop better in low light), or spend more money and get IQ/low light capability that DX can't dream of reaching.

Which illustrates my point that people switch to FX to get better IQ not to get something cheaper.

You can go both ways...get only a slight IQ improvement and save money, or get a huge IQ improvement by spending more. There's nothing stopping anyone from taking the cheap lens route. And there's certainly nothing in my post that implies taking the really-high-IQ route is the best route.

What "most people" do is irrelevant. If I did what "most people" would recommend (to get an action shooting setup capable of 600mm reach), I'd have spent more than 3 times as much on camera equipment. Not once in my equipment research process did I ask myself "is this what most people do?"

I am comparing the cheapest way to cover a set of focal lengths on DX vs. FX. That is my original statement in my original posts which you called a myth.

First of all, the cheapest way to cover a set of focal lengths has been shown to you by chlamchowder, FX is cheaper, by a significant margin.

Funny that chlamchowder said exactly the opposite if one restricts oneself to new lenses:

With new lenses, FX and DX trade blows. For someone like the OP who probably just wants to get to certain focal lengths without too much concern about DOF or low light capability, DX provides a cost advantage.

As my list clearly showed, and as I spelled it out in another post, my statement was based on new lenses. Now, you don't acknowledge that I spelled that out, nor that there is a significant difference between including used out-of-production lenses or only new lenses, or that in fact for new lenses my statement is true.

There is a very simple rule when discussing a matter: you have to acknowledge you opponent's position before you criticise it.

Secondly, and more importantly, there is no sensible reason why anyone would cover a whole FL range with the cheapest lenses. such discussion has zero practical value and hardly any academic value.

Is there a sensible reason why you are unable to differentiate between whether a statement refers to something irrelevant or is a myth? And see above for chlamchowder describing a situation which exactly fits my conditions.

Lastly, and amusingly, you place such a peculiar boundary conditions ("cheapest") and then you turn around and say :

How is 'cheapest' a peculiar boundary condition when talking about which lenses are cheaper? And 'cheaper' is still a much more general condition than comparing just two individual camera models that are years apart.

You can declare that question irrelevant (because few people would aspire to do that) but you didn't, you called it a myth.

It is a myth, despelled by chlamchowder.

Why are you unwilling to acknowledge that there are two different statements? (a) looking only at new lenses and (b) including used lenses. And that the answer is different for these two statements?

It is like me saying: 'The inside of the car is black' and you answering back: 'You are wrong, the outside of the car is white'.

I am comparing the cheapest way to cover a set of focal lengths on DX vs. FX. That is my original statement in my original posts which you called a myth.

First of all, the cheapest way to cover a set of focal lengths has been shown to you by chlamchowder, FX is cheaper, by a significant margin.

Funny that chlamchowder said exactly the opposite if one restricts oneself to new lenses:

With new lenses, FX and DX trade blows. For someone like the OP who probably just wants to get to certain focal lengths without too much concern about DOF or low light capability, DX provides a cost advantage.

As my list clearly showed, and as I spelled it out in another post, my statement was based on new lenses. Now, you don't acknowledge that I spelled that out, nor that there is a significant difference between including used out-of-production lenses or only new lenses, or that in fact for new lenses my statement is true.

There is a very simple rule when discussing a matter: you have to acknowledge you opponent's position before you criticise it.

What he said is if one wants to get to certain focal lengths, but no concern about DOF or low light capability. then DX is cheaper.

it does not resemble what you said which is

"to cover any set of focal lengths, you will have almost universally pay more for a FX set than a DX set"

There is no qualification that it must be new, and there is no qualification that you compare the same FL but ignore everything else.

Secondly, and more importantly, there is no sensible reason why anyone would cover a whole FL range with the cheapest lenses. such discussion has zero practical value and hardly any academic value.

Is there a sensible reason why you are unable to differentiate between whether a statement refers to something irrelevant or is a myth?

The reason if you are confused, I have never been unable to.

And see above for chlamchowder describing a situation which exactly fits my conditions.

that is a misquotation.

Lastly, and amusingly, you place such a peculiar boundary conditions ("cheapest") and then you turn around and say :

How is 'cheapest' a peculiar boundary condition when talking about which lenses are cheaper?

Because no one goes for the cheapest for every thing. When people ask "what is cheaper" there is always a implied condition that any candidate is of a particular quality or performance standard.

And 'cheaper' is still a much more general condition than comparing just two individual camera models that are years apart.

What?

You can declare that question irrelevant (because few people would aspire to do that) but you didn't, you called it a myth.

It is a myth, despelled by chlamchowder.

Why are you unwilling to acknowledge that there are two different statements? (a) looking only at new lenses and (b) including used lenses. And that the answer is different for these two statements?

It is like me saying: 'The inside of the car is black' and you answering back: 'You are wrong, the outside of the car is white'.

But this is quite easy: I have the 17-55 (on my second D300) and I bought the d600 with the 24-85 in sept 2012. It came with the d600 as 'a bonus', meaning almost for free (50 euro). I used it on the d600 until december 2012. Then I sold it. The 17-55 is a faster lens that equals a 25.5-82.5 range which you will hardly be able to distinguish from the 24-85 in every day use. But you will notice the much higher AF speed, much better built quality and better colors of the 17-55with it's genes from the holy trinity Fx lenses. The 24-85 is an overpriced Nikon lens with good center sharpness. That's all. Nevertheless, considering the current price, the 17-55 is over the top as well.

The counterpart of the D600 and 24-85 is not the d7100 with a 17-55. It is the D7100 with the Sigma 17-70 OS C. I have a 17-70 OS attached to my D300s and it makes up about all I need when I go travelling. It has a very smooth bokeh, great near focus ability and an OS that rivals the VRII easily. It's reach only compares to the 24-120. The latter is for sale at the moment because mine is too noisy with it's squeeky AF and it lacks contrast.

There are two tables presented to you showing many choises of equal focal length in Dx and Fx. Clamchowder spelled it out for you. YMMV.

His write-up makes some good points, but I differ with his blanket statement that IQ differences are only seen in low light/high ISO situations. Looking over the Imaging Resource samples, I see better IQ even at base ISO on the D600 vs. the D7100, despite the FF shot being at a DOF disadvantage (same aperture used on both shots). There is better edge sharpness and detail, even in base ISO situations. Look at the basket weave behind the swatches, and the beard detail on the bottle as good examples. The D600 is crisp and clean, the D7100 softer.

The other major difference he doesn't discuss is the viewfinder size. "Perceived brightness" is not the big viewfinder differentiator, the size of the viewfinder is. The D600 viewfinder is much bigger and better. The D7100 viewfinder, like all APS-C viewfinders, is too small and is irritating to look through - kind of like trying to peer through a small kehole in a thick door (not that I have a lot of experience with that, before you get the wrong idea!).

I am comparing the cheapest way to cover a set of focal lengths on DX vs. FX. That is my original statement in my original posts which you called a myth.

First of all, the cheapest way to cover a set of focal lengths has been shown to you by chlamchowder, FX is cheaper, by a significant margin.

Funny that chlamchowder said exactly the opposite if one restricts oneself to new lenses:

With new lenses, FX and DX trade blows. For someone like the OP who probably just wants to get to certain focal lengths without too much concern about DOF or low light capability, DX provides a cost advantage.

As my list clearly showed, and as I spelled it out in another post, my statement was based on new lenses. Now, you don't acknowledge that I spelled that out, nor that there is a significant difference between including used out-of-production lenses or only new lenses, or that in fact for new lenses my statement is true.

There is a very simple rule when discussing a matter: you have to acknowledge you opponent's position before you criticise it.

What he said is if one wants to get to certain focal lengths, but no concern about DOF or low light capability. then DX is cheaper.

Which is 100% what I said and you called a myth.

it does not resemble what you said which is

"to cover any set of focal lengths, you will have almost universally pay more for a FX set than a DX set"

There is no qualification that it must be new, and there is no qualification that you compare the same FL but ignore everything else.

What is the difference between "if one wants to get to certain focal lengths" and "to cover any set of focal lengths"? Both say that going to a specific focal length (or focal lengths, we both used the plural) is essentially the only criteria when choosing the lenses. And both statements say that for multiple focal lengths (ie, not just one single focal length) DX is cheaper which is the same as saying that FX is more expensive.

And yes, I did not spell out that I only considered new lenses but then I had replied to subthread that only talked for three straight post only about new lenses (Grevture, paulski66, Grevture, me). And after you called by statement a myth, I directly asked you for examples which would show that my statement was not true. But you refused to do so without me first answering a question about two specific cameras. Ok, so I answered the question, correctly as you confirmed. But you still did not produce any examples. And then two post later I showed you a list which clearly showed that I only considered new lenses. You could have ended that much earlier. I provided more than 30 lenses as examples and you never even presented a single example.

Lastly, and amusingly, you place such a peculiar boundary conditions ("cheapest") and then you turn around and say :

How is 'cheapest' a peculiar boundary condition when talking about which lenses are cheaper?

Because no one goes for the cheapest for every thing.

Nobody buys the cheapest lens for a given focal length (or a set of focal lengths)? Isn't it rather the other way around that the cheapest model is usually the one which sells the most?

When people ask "what is cheaper" there is always a implied condition that any candidate is of a particular quality or performance standard.

As for example only looking at lenses with the same brand as the camera or only at relatively modern lenses which implies having modern features like VR and AF-S.

And 'cheaper' is still a much more general condition than comparing just two individual camera models that are years apart.

What?

I introduced the word 'peculiar' into the discussion when you appeared to answer questions about two sensor sizes (and associated lenses) by comparing two individual camera models from different generations.

which you will hardly be able to distinguish from the 24-85 in every day use.

exactly, so why pay 3 times the price?

But you will notice the much higher AF speed,

slightly better maybe, much higher no.

much better built quality

that much is true, but who bangs their lens?

and better colors of the 17-55

I have not seen any evidence for this. I have canon 17-55 which is a better lens than nikon 17-55 and apart from CA and distortion, it does not beat the 24-85 ion D600.

The 24-85 is an overpriced Nikon lens with good center sharpness.

Which lens did you compare it to to conclude that it is overpriced? At 500 as kit. it certainly is better value for money than 24-120 F4 and possibly 24-70. the older 24-85 was cheaper but did not have VR, the 24-85 before it had a rather terrible F2.8 at 24mm so end result is very mediocre.

The only weakness this 24-85 has is corner softness, but even then corner resolution is still higher than 17-55 on aps-c.

I have certainly taken some very acceptable images with it.

That's all. Nevertheless, considering the current price, the 17-55 is over the top as well.

The 17-55 is way overpriced. Optically it is not outstanding and all its competitors have OS/IS for abotu 2/3 to 1/2 the price.

The counterpart of the D600 and 24-85 is not the d7100 with a 17-55. It is the D7100 with the Sigma 17-70 OS C.

that lens is effectively F4.2-F6 on FF. a much slower lens. it should be compared to 24-120 F3.5-F5.6.

There are two tables presented to you showing many choises of equal focal length in Dx and Fx. Clamchowder spelled it out for you.

Lot of rubbish here. Stop comparing those old second hand Tamrons or Sigmas. I used those kind of lense back in the day on my D700 and even the 18-55mm on DX was way better in every way. I'll never shoot those so called lenses again.

What you get for those $1800: About 1,3 stops advantage in ISO performance and DOF control (exept with the wide angle setup), bigger and brighter viewfinder (I prefer bright but smaller viewfinder, I see the composition better with DX vf)

What you get with DX for $1800 less. MUCH better autofocus in every way, really no comparison. Much smaller and lighter setup. better bracketing, 100% zoom on focus point, higher flash sync speed, much better lcd in daylight., much better video.

All that nonsense with comparing used third party glass that I can make in my garage, and with unusable autofocus (people are donating 18-55mm so you can get one for free if you want a fair comparison) or using slower aperture equiv that negates the advantage of FX is silly. Stop comparing the 17-55mm DX, which is the most overpriced lens in Nikons history, who in the right mind would buy that lens today ?

And there is also a question not raised yet here (but raised by Thom Hogan): How do you output ? If I output on my 32'' HDTV, you really cannot see a difference at even ISO 12800 between D600 and D7100. In print, you barely see a half of stop difference but only when you print fairly big, you don't see a difference in 8x10 which is as big as most people print. And looking on 27'' monitor again you can barely see half of stop, and on retina iPad also you can barely see half a stop. Now looking at 100% at the monitor, you can see a more than a stop.

It makes me laugh when I see people saying that DX has no practical advantage, and a FX system also cost less.

That said, I may be going FX this year, but that doesn't change all the above.

Stop comparing those old second hand Tamrons or Sigmas. I used those kind of lense back in the day on my D700 and even the 18-55mm on DX was way better in every way. I'll never shoot those so called lenses again.

What you get for those $1800: About 1,3 stops advantage in ISO performance and DOF control (exept with the wide angle setup), bigger and brighter viewfinder (I prefer bright but smaller viewfinder, I see the composition better with DX vf)

you get all that same less money.

used third party glass that I can make in my garage

lets see you do that.

using slower aperture equiv that negates the advantage of FX is silly.

less money similar performance or same money better performance.

Stop comparing the 17-55mm DX, which is the most overpriced lens in Nikons history, who in the right mind would buy that lens today ?

what else have you got?

If I output on my 32'' HDTV, you really cannot see a difference at even ISO 12800 between D600 and D7100.

utter non-sense. high iso isnt just about resolution it is also about DR and colour. if you cannot see the difference it coud only mean your TV is 4 bit.

In print, you barely see a half of stop difference but only when you print fairly big, you don't see a difference in 8x10 which is as big as most people print. And looking on 27'' monitor again you can barely see half of stop, and on retina iPad also you can barely see half a stop. Now looking at 100% at the monitor, you can see a more than a stop.

even more reason to use slow lenses on FX to save money then.

It makes me laugh when I see people saying that DX has no practical advantage, and a FX system also cost less.

Ignorance is bless.

That said, I may be going FX this year, but that doesn't change all the above.

it will, from yoru post it is obvious that you are an irrational fanboy. you will fight whichever side you are on to the death. once you have an FF camera, you will tell the whole how the body is cheaper than aps-c too.

The point is, what if the Tokina 11-16 mm, the Tamron 17-50 mm, the 35 mm f/1.8, and the 55-200 mm are good and fast enough for you?

The 18-35 mm is $150 more expensive than the Tokina ($750 vs $600), the 24-85 mm VR is $50 less expensive (compared with VR version of the Tamron), and the 55-200 mm is $350 less expensive than the 70-300 mm ($600 vs $250), the 35 and 50 mm are about the same and the body is $800 more expensive. Total: $1250 saved with the DX system.

You are right, the FF lenses are probably all better but they are not cheaper. Which comes back to very first sentence I added to this thread: FX is more expensive but also better.

Stop comparing the 17-55mm DX, which is the most overpriced lens in Nikons history, who in the right mind would buy that lens today ?

what else have you got?

The Tamron 17-50 mm, whose mention you conveniently ignored.

In print, you barely see a half of stop difference but only when you print fairly big, you don't see a difference in 8x10 which is as big as most people print. And looking on 27'' monitor again you can barely see half of stop, and on retina iPad also you can barely see half a stop. Now looking at 100% at the monitor, you can see a more than a stop.

even more reason to use slow lenses on FX to save money then.

The very 'slow' lenses that you suggested just above are more expensive.

it will, from yoru post it is obvious that you are an irrational fanboy. you will fight whichever side you are on to the death. once you have an FF camera, you will tell the whole how the body is cheaper than aps-c too.

And that you conveniently ignore things that don't fit your preset opinion. Isn't it funny that you describe two FX owners (or planned owners for d3xmeister) as DX fanboys? I have shot with a FX camera for the last five years (and before that for five years with a DX system) and for some strange reason I have not followed your prediction of turning from a DX to a FX fanboy.

The point is, what if the Tokina 11-16 mm, the Tamron 17-50 mm, the 35 mm f/1.8, and the 55-200 mm are good and fast enough for you?

that is not the point d3xmeister was making. he thinks that set actuall matches the performance of the FX set,

But if as you say these listed lenses are enough, then it should be even cheaper to use Sigma EX 17-35 2.8-4, nikon 24-85 G, 50 F1.8 D and 70-300G.

You are right, the FF lenses are probably all better but they are not cheaper. Which comes back to very first sentence I added to this thread: FX is more expensive but also better.

they are cheaper if you want the same IQ. 18-35, 24-85VR, 70-300 VR are not it. they provide better IQ.

Stop comparing the 17-55mm DX, which is the most overpriced lens in Nikons history, who in the right mind would buy that lens today ?

what else have you got?

The Tamron 17-50 mm, whose mention you conveniently ignored.

the tamon 17-50 is a much weaker lens compared to 17-55 (ackknowledging it is a better deal) its IQ at F2.8 is weak and its AF is inconsistent and its motor is a conventional micro-motor.

The sigma 17-50 OS is much better but still suffers from AF inconsistncy.

In print, you barely see a half of stop difference but only when you print fairly big, you don't see a difference in 8x10 which is as big as most people print. And looking on 27'' monitor again you can barely see half of stop, and on retina iPad also you can barely see half a stop. Now looking at 100% at the monitor, you can see a more than a stop.

even more reason to use slow lenses on FX to save money then.

The very 'slow' lenses that you suggested just above are more expensive.

Still better than DX.

it will, from yoru post it is obvious that you are an irrational fanboy. you will fight whichever side you are on to the death. once you have an FF camera, you will tell the whole how the body is cheaper than aps-c too.

And that you conveniently ignore things that don't fit your preset opinion.

No I do not.

Isn't it funny that you describe two FX owners (or planned owners for d3xmeister) as DX fanboys?

Who else did I call fanboy?

I have shot with a FX camera for the last five years (and before that for five years with a DX system) and for some strange reason I have not followed your prediction of turning from a DX to a FX fanboy.

Because you did not understand what I said. I did not say anyone who uses FF becomes a fanboy. I said D3xmeister is the type of person with fanboy mentality, he becomes a fanboy of whatever camera/smartphone/car/Tv he may have.

The point is, what if the Tokina 11-16 mm, the Tamron 17-50 mm, the 35 mm f/1.8, and the 55-200 mm are good and fast enough for you?

that is not the point d3xmeister was making. he thinks that set actuall matches the performance of the FX set,

No, he never says it matches, he says it is close enough for him. And that is the point you apparently cannot accept: that something which you think is clearly different could be considered by others as close enough.

But if as you say these listed lenses are enough, then it should be even cheaper to use Sigma EX 17-35 2.8-4, nikon 24-85 G, 50 F1.8 D and 70-300G.

Well, I don't know whether the Sigma 17-35 mm f/2.8-4 is better or worse than the Tokina 11-16 mm. The only thing I can say that I have repeatedly seen people saying they really like the output of the 11-16 mm, which I have not seen for the Sigma (but if you have a lens test showing that, I am fully accepting that). The used prices for the Sigma seem to be about $250 cheaper than the used prices for the Tokina. Which makes the DX lens set still to come out a bit cheaper and $800 body price difference for DX remains.

But it still boils down to that some people just prefer to buy new. And while you might consider them to be irrational fools, there are some, probably hard to quantify, advantages when buying new.

You are right, the FF lenses are probably all better but they are not cheaper. Which comes back to very first sentence I added to this thread: FX is more expensive but also better.

they are cheaper if you want the same IQ. 18-35, 24-85VR, 70-300 VR are not it. they provide better IQ.

The lens set you just suggested above is not cheaper.

what else have you got?

The Tamron 17-50 mm, whose mention you conveniently ignored.

the tamon 17-50 is a much weaker lens compared to 17-55 (ackknowledging it is a better deal) its IQ at F2.8 is weak and its AF is inconsistent and its motor is a conventional micro-motor.

The question is rather why you repeatedly pretend that the other party has not answered your question. What was the purpose to insinuate that d3xmeister had ruled out the 17-55 mm without presenting an alternative if had just done so a few lines earlier?

The sigma 17-50 OS is much better but still suffers from AF inconsistncy.

In print, you barely see a half of stop difference but only when you print fairly big, you don't see a difference in 8x10 which is as big as most people print. And looking on 27'' monitor again you can barely see half of stop, and on retina iPad also you can barely see half a stop. Now looking at 100% at the monitor, you can see a more than a stop.

even more reason to use slow lenses on FX to save money then.

The very 'slow' lenses that you suggested just above are more expensive.

Still better than DX.

You repeat your car description routine again. I say the inside of the car is black (the FX lens set you suggested is more expensive) and you answer me back that he outside of the car is white (the FX set is optically better than the DX set).

it will, from yoru post it is obvious that you are an irrational fanboy. you will fight whichever side you are on to the death. once you have an FF camera, you will tell the whole how the body is cheaper than aps-c too.

And that you conveniently ignore things that don't fit your preset opinion.

No I do not.

Isn't it funny that you describe two FX owners (or planned owners for d3xmeister) as DX fanboys?

Who else did I call fanboy?

You clearly accuse d3xmeister and me of pretty much the same things, it stands to reason that if you then describe one of us as a fanboy that you feel pretty much the same about the other.

I have shot with a FX camera for the last five years (and before that for five years with a DX system) and for some strange reason I have not followed your prediction of turning from a DX to a FX fanboy.

Because you did not understand what I said. I did not say anyone who uses FF becomes a fanboy. I said D3xmeister is the type of person with fanboy mentality, he becomes a fanboy of whatever camera/smartphone/car/Tv he may have.

No, but you pretty said that anyone who claims that FX lenses are more expensive than DX lenses using the kind of examples and arguments that d3xmeister and me have used is a DX fanboy.

that is not the point d3xmeister was making. he thinks that set actuall matches the performance of the FX set,

No, he never says it matches, he says it is close enough for him.

then why pick better performing FX set?

And that is the point you apparently cannot accept: that something which you think is clearly different could be considered by others as close enough.

I can accept people find certain performance level acceptable, in fact it is based on that very premesis I say FX lenses can be cheaper.

But if as you say these listed lenses are enough, then it should be even cheaper to use Sigma EX 17-35 2.8-4, nikon 24-85 G, 50 F1.8 D and 70-300G.

Well, I don't know whether the Sigma 17-35 mm f/2.8-4 is better or worse than the Tokina 11-16 mm.

It is better, because image circle is larger the resulting image has much more detail, a native strength of being FX.

The only thing I can say that I have repeatedly seen people saying they really like the output of the 11-16 mm, which I have not seen for the Sigma (but if you have a lens test showing that, I am fully accepting that).

I have used the 11-16 extensively, it has nice IQ but terrible AF. What you have to remember is 11-16 is compared against other DX lenses, all of which are slower and many are less sharp. But when compared to FX lens it is very difficultfor 11-16 to beat them on total resolution and speed.

The used prices for the Sigma seem to be about $250 cheaper than the used prices for the Tokina. Which makes the DX lens set still to come out a bit cheaper and $800 body price difference for DX remains.

But it still boils down to that some people just prefer to buy new. And while you might consider them to be irrational fools, there are some, probably hard to quantify, advantages when buying new.

No i do not consider them irrational fools. But if we must add "buy new" requirement to our comparison we are keep making conditions more perculiar. Why would someone want to buy so many different lenses but all of the cheapest kind and all new?

You are right, the FF lenses are probably all better but they are not cheaper. Which comes back to very first sentence I added to this thread: FX is more expensive but also better.

they are cheaper if you want the same IQ. 18-35, 24-85VR, 70-300 VR are not it. they provide better IQ.

The lens set you just suggested above is not cheaper.

Sigma EX 17-35 2.8-4, nikon 24-85 G, 50 F1.8 D and 70-300G.

the tamon 17-50 is a much weaker lens compared to 17-55 (ackknowledging it is a better deal) its IQ at F2.8 is weak and its AF is inconsistent and its motor is a conventional micro-motor.

The question is rather why you repeatedly pretend that the other party has not answered your question. What was the purpose to insinuate that d3xmeister had ruled out the 17-55 mm without presenting an alternative if had just done so a few lines earlier?

The point is, 17-55 is nikon's best offering at that zoom range , it is outperformed by the much cheaper 24-85 VR on FX. anything other than 17-55 will do even worse compared to 24-85 VR on FX.

An old 24-85G is sufficient to beat likes of 17-50VC.

You clearly accuse d3xmeister and me of pretty much the same things, it stands to reason that if you then describe one of us as a fanboy that you feel pretty much the same about the other.

I did not accuse you and d3x of the same thing. did I say you were a fanboy. just because you sing the same tune doesnt mean you are from the town.

No, but you pretty said that anyone who claims that FX lenses are more expensive than DX lenses using the kind of examples and arguments that d3xmeister and me have used is a DX fanboy.

No i did not. give it a rest, no need to insist that you have earned the badge of fanboy.